(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.